Buried Bones – “Cutthroat”

Podcast: Buried Bones (Exactly Right & iHeartPodcasts)
Date: April 9, 2025
Hosts: Kate Winkler Dawson (Journalist, True Crime Author), Paul Holes (Retired Cold Case Investigator)

Overview

In this episode titled "Cutthroat", Kate and Paul dissect the unsolved 1892 case of Katie Dugan, a pregnant 17-year-old found brutally murdered in Wilmington, Delaware. The pair examine the investigation from both a historical and modern forensic perspective, exploring the limitations of the era, the cultural stigmas surrounding pregnancy out of wedlock, and the challenges of building a viable case without today’s scientific tools. With a focus on victimology, suspect profiling, unreliable witnesses, and telling parallels to another infamous case, the hosts interrogate the available evidence while reflecting on the persistent vulnerabilities faced by women in society.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Setting the Stage: Crime and Vulnerability

• The recurring theme: Many historic true crime cases involve vulnerable young women, a reality the hosts note hasn't changed much even in the modern era.
  • “We just keep going backwards in time and it's the same old story.” – Kate (08:02)
  • Paul highlights the added risks women face, especially when alone at night, and how little this has changed over time.

The Discovery (09:03–13:17)

• Victim: Katie Dugan, 17, found murdered in a field.
• Scene Details:
  • Fully clothed except for her hat (10 feet away).
  • Pool of blood under her head.
  • Battered and bruised eyes.
  • Throat slashed so deeply she was nearly decapitated—straight razor found nearby.
• Forensic Commentary:
  • Paul explains the mechanics and implications of such a wound, noting that deep slashes from a straight razor, while gruesome, may not always indicate extreme rage, but simply the lethality and sharpness of the weapon. (11:21)
  • Discussion of blood pooling and possible sequence of injuries (was she subdued first, defensive wounds, etc.).

Victimology & Societal Context (20:27–24:09)

• Katie's background:
  • Pregnant (four months), unmarried, living with her parents after working as a domestic.
  • Pregnancy was unknown to her family; marked social stigma in 1892.
  • “Homicide is the leading cause of death for women who are pregnant and in the postpartum period in America.” – Kate (21:03)
• Paul immediately considers:
  • Possible involvement of the biological father.
  • Risks of exposure for the man involved.
  • The relevance of social circles and potential for jealousy or scandal-motivated violence.

Suicide vs. Homicide (24:09–25:55)

• Initial police theory: Could the murder have been staged as a suicide?
• Paul dismisses the plausibility due to:
  • The battered and bruised eyes suggest violence pre-throat cutting.
  • The positioning and nature of the wound.
  • “Offenders often leave the murder weapon behind. So just the fact that the razor is sitting next to her does not indicate suicide.” (25:38)

Investigation: The Search for Jack (33:10–41:15)

• Key Evidence:
  • Katie received a cheerful letter addressed from “Jack” on the day she died: “Meet me on Wednesday night at the same place at the same time.” (33:11)
  • Multiple witnesses place Katie with a clean-shaven, light-complexioned man the night of her murder.
  • Katie exclaims “Oh my God” several times, heard by a young witness.
• Investigation hones in on Richard Riley:
  • Friendly/flirtatious with Katie but denies involvement/paternity, provides an alibi at a church event, and witness descriptions don’t match.
  • Laundry incident: Authorities suspicious that Riley hurriedly laundered his clothes; he claims he spilled coconut cake (43:55).
  • Alibi appears solid.

Two Years Later: Spotlight on Albert Stout / “Jack” (47:43–54:31)

• Momentum in the case renewed by Katie’s mother, who suggests “Jack” is not Jack, but Albert Stout—a 40-year-old married businessman and Katie’s former employer.
  • Power dynamics: 17-year-old employee vs. 40-year-old married man.
  • She had lived with his family and was let go months before her death, possibly related to her pregnancy.
  • Four witnesses (coming forward only now) claim to have seen Albert and Katie arguing on the night of her death, walking toward the field.
• Paul expresses skepticism over the reliability of witnesses surfacing two years later and makes a comparative analysis to a similar case from Kate’s book.

Forensics & 19th-Century Limitations (55:34–59:29)

• Handwriting analysis of the “Jack” note supposedly matches Albert’s; skepticism and limitations of 1892 forensics discussed.
  • Parallels to Sarah Cornell case (from Kate’s book) are drawn regarding anonymous letters and handwriting analysis.
• Envelopes matching those used by Albert found in his house—of limited evidentiary value.
• Paul on handwriting evidence: “It’s a comparative science...when there are significant differences, then, yes, they can form an opinion. This document contains handwriting that is different than the known handwriting from the individual...” (55:54)

Albert Stout’s (Unconvincing) Alibi (59:29–62:38)

• Extremely detailed timeline, reconstructed two years after the fact—overly precise and suspicious.
  • “No, he’s lying.” – Paul (61:00)
  • A domestic worker contradicts his alibi, stating he returned home at 9 pm, after Katie was last seen alive.
• Motive: Albert’s reputation, business, and family at risk if his affair and paternity are revealed.

Legal Standards: Then vs. Now (63:26–68:55)

• 1890s: Circumstantial but compelling—handwriting, witness statements, motive, opportunity.
• Today: Wouldn’t stand up—lack of physical/biological evidence, timeline uncertainties, unreliable witness memory.
  • “Per the expected standards of today, no.” (63:26)
  • “Relatively speaking, it’s a weak case...investigatively, this looks like the guy...but can I build a case against him or eliminate him?” – Paul (65:29)
• Case result: Grand jury refuses to indict; case remains unsolved.

Societal and Personal Reflection (68:55–end)

• Kate expresses her frustration with unresolved cases and her empathy for the victim’s family:
  • “This is why I don’t like unsolved cases. I need a conclusion one way or the other.” (68:55)
  • Paul values the challenge and potential for new insight in cold cases.
• Next week: Promised coverage of a solved case.

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On the repeating victimization of women:

  • “We just keep going backwards in time and it's the same old story.” – Kate (08:02)

• On the key question:

  • “Who is the biological father? What is that relationship? Is there any jeopardy that he might be under if it is found out that he has impregnated the 17 year old teenage girl?” – Paul (21:24)

• On 19th-century forensic limits:

  • “The offender is not thinking fingerprints because fingerprints were not a thing just yet in investigations.” – Kate (25:55)
  • “With Albert, he has the negative impact on his future as a result of getting Katie pregnant. And I, you know, have always said we don’t need to prove motive, but when there is possible motive, you have to pay attention to that from an investigative slant.” – Paul (49:48)

• On suspect alibis:

  • “No, he’s lying.” – Paul, after hearing Albert's detailed timeline (61:00)
  • “Are you kidding me? Two years later and you want me to kind of figure out what I did that night?... There’s just no way.” (62:38)

• On differences between past and present justice:

  • “Per the expected standards of today, no.” – Paul, when asked if the case would proceed to trial with modern standards (63:26)
  • “Relatively speaking, it’s a weak case... But back then, I think they probably put a lot of weight on the circumstances and...I’m not arguing that they’re wrong.” (65:29)

• Final thoughts on what was lost:

  • “I’m going to be thinking about Katie Dugan and her parents and just, man, I wish she had had justice here. 17, life in front of her.” – Kate (69:15)

Timeline of Important Segments

• [09:03]: Discussion of Katie’s murder and crime scene details
• [13:17]: Paul’s forensic breakdown of throat slashings
• [20:27]: Victimology and societal realities of pregnancy out of wedlock
• [24:09]: Suicide vs. homicide and weapon analysis
• [33:10]: Key clue: “Jack” and the rendezvous letter
• [37:23–41:15]: Eyewitnesses and the Richard Riley investigation
• [47:43]: Focus shifts to Albert Stout
• [55:34]: Handwriting analysis and forensic limitations of the era
• [59:29]: Albert’s contested alibi and other evidence
• [63:26]: Comparing 19th-century and modern investigative/justice standards
• [68:55]: Personal reflections and episode wrap-up

Tone and Style

The discussion is engaging, occasionally somber, and at times darkly witty—reflecting both gravitas for the historical tragedy and the hosts’ camaraderie. Kate’s careful research grounds the narrative, while Paul adds modern forensic insight and hard-boiled skepticism. Both express empathy for the victim and frustration at justice left undone.

Conclusion

This episode of Buried Bones exposes a haunting cold case where cultural, forensic, and legal limitations left a clear suspect unpunished. The investigation’s weaknesses and disturbing themes still resonate today, underscoring how much—and how little—has changed in the protection of vulnerable women and the pursuit of justice. While the grand jury in 1895 declined to indict, leaving Katie Dugan’s case unsolved, Kate and Paul illuminate the enduring relevance and tragic weight of such historical crimes.